Herrler Jürgen, Williams Sydney N, Liebig Patrick, Ding Belinda, McElhinney Paul, Allwood-Spiers Sarah, Meixner Christian R, Gunamony Shajan, Maier Andreas, Dörfler Arnd, Gumbrecht Rene, Porter David A, Nagel Armin M
Department of Neuroradiology, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany.
Magn Reson Med. 2023 May;89(5):1888-1900. doi: 10.1002/mrm.29569. Epub 2023 Jan 9.
To investigate the effects of using different parallel-transmit (pTx) head coils and specific absorption rate (SAR) supervision strategies on pTx pulse design for ultrahigh-field MRI using a 3D-MPRAGE sequence.
The PTx universal pulses (UPs) and fast online-customized (FOCUS) pulses were designed with pre-acquired data sets (B , B maps, specific absorption rate [SAR] supervision data) from two different 8 transmit/32 receive head coils on two 7T whole-body MR systems. For one coil, the SAR supervision model consisted of per-channel RF power limits. In the other coil, SAR estimations were done with both per-channel RF power limits as well as virtual observation points (VOPs) derived from electromagnetic field (EMF) simulations using three virtual human body models at three different positions. All pulses were made for nonselective excitation and inversion and evaluated on 132 B , B , and SAR supervision datasets obtained with one coil and 12 from the other. At both sites, 3 subjects were examined using MPRAGE sequences that used UP/FOCUS pulses generated for both coils.
For some subjects, the UPs underperformed when simulated on a different coil from which they were derived, whereas FOCUS pulses still showed acceptable performance in that case. FOCUS inversion pulses outperformed adiabatic pulses when scaled to the same local SAR level. For the self-built coil, the use of VOPs showed reliable overestimation compared with the ground-truth EMF simulations, predicting about 52% lower local SAR for inversion pulses compared with per-channel power limits.
FOCUS inversion pulses offer a low-SAR alternative to adiabatic pulses and benefit from using EMF-based VOPs for SAR estimation.
研究使用不同的并行发射(pTx)头部线圈和比吸收率(SAR)监测策略对采用三维磁化准备快速梯度回波(3D-MPRAGE)序列的超高场磁共振成像(MRI)中pTx脉冲设计的影响。
利用两个7T全身MR系统上两种不同的8发射/32接收头部线圈预先获取的数据集(B0、B1图谱、比吸收率[SAR]监测数据),设计了PTx通用脉冲(UPs)和快速在线定制(FOCUS)脉冲。对于一个线圈,SAR监测模型由每通道射频功率限制组成。对于另一个线圈,使用三个不同位置的三个虚拟人体模型,通过电磁场(EMF)模拟得出的每通道射频功率限制以及虚拟观测点(VOPs)进行SAR估计。所有脉冲均用于非选择性激发和反转,并在使用一个线圈获得的132个B0、B1和SAR监测数据集以及另一个线圈的12个数据集上进行评估。在两个站点,对3名受试者使用MPRAGE序列进行检查,该序列使用为两个线圈生成的UP/FOCUS脉冲。
对于一些受试者,当在与其推导时不同的线圈上进行模拟时,UPs的表现不佳,而在这种情况下FOCUS脉冲仍表现出可接受的性能。当缩放到相同的局部SAR水平时,FOCUS反转脉冲优于绝热脉冲。对于自建线圈,与真实EMF模拟相比,VOPs的使用显示出可靠的高估,预测反转脉冲的局部SAR比每通道功率限制低约52%。
FOCUS反转脉冲为绝热脉冲提供了一种低SAR替代方案,并受益于使用基于EMF的VOPs进行SAR估计。